why does nobody talk about glucagon
Question in the title, detail here: why does nobody talk about glucagon.
Independent purity testing on this compound is thin compared with the older molecules, simply because fewer members have paid for it. Fewer results means wider uncertainty, not a verdict.
Sent a vial to VendorInvestigate out of curiosity. Result was 98.5% against a claimed 98.0%, which is the first independent number I had seen for this compound anywhere.
The thing that surprised me was how much of the discussion here is inference rather than measurement.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use and nothing here should be read as a recommendation to use it.
best — the order this archive was captured in
Nothing containing this compound is approved anywhere. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use, and that is a statement of fact rather than a disclaimer.
Stopped at a low step because there was no reason to go further and no data to tell me what further would do.
Left up. It reads the phase 2 paper carefully and it is honest about the intervals.
Correction: TRIUMPH is the phase 3 programme. The number you are quoting is from the phase 2 readout, which is a different trial.
Agreed on the heart-rate reports. They are consistent enough across the threads to be worth noting, not enough to be a finding.
What the glucagon arm is doing, as best anyone can say from public data.
GLP-1 and GIP agonism cover appetite and insulin secretion in ways that are now reasonably well characterised. Glucagon receptor agonism is the third leg and it is associated with increased energy expenditure and with effects on hepatic fat.
Mechanistically that is why this compound reads as a different proposition rather than a stronger version of a dual agonist. Clinically, the size and durability of that difference in humans is precisely what is not yet established, and anyone telling you otherwise is filling a gap with confidence.
Disagree. "More receptors means more effect" is not how any of this works and the trial data does not support the linear story.
Yes — the comparison threads are apples to oranges and they generate more heat than anything else here.
Read the phase 2 paper twice before ordering anything. Recommend that to anyone in this board: the error bars are the interesting part.